harrypotterfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Unidentified Hogwarts employees
Archive 1 Great list Hi, I only wanted to say: This list is great. The characters are not lost and you can read about all of them on one page. Great work! [[User:Harry granger| Harry granger ]][[User talk:Harry granger| ' Talk ']] 18:13, July 31, 2012 (UTC) :Yep. I said it before, but I'll say it again, it's a great job. The information isn't lost, but it's no longer scattered across a bunch of pages. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:30, July 31, 2012 (UTC) ::Yes, it is a fantastic compromise between 'deleting' and 'keeping'. I also think that this should be done to 'unidentified students', unidentified wizards', and 'unidentified followers of Voldemort'. -- 18:31, August 2, 2012 (UTC) At Flourish & Blotts and quidditch spectator at Hogwarts "1992 Quidditch spectator beside Irma Pince" I just found this woman in the scene at Flourish & Blotts when introducing Lucius Malfoy. You can clearly appreciate by her hat and clothes, that she is the same. So we can say that the adults attendants at Quidditch matches are not necessarily Hogwarts' employees, maybe they can be ex-students too. Here are the pictures of her watching Quidditch as we know at the moment, and in Flourish & Bloots near to Ron Weasley as I just have identified: Wow! Nice catch! I imagine Hogwarts would allow villagers in Hogmeade to attend matches, (who would presumably have come to know some of the students playing through Hogsmeade weekends or, given how small the magical community is, knew them/their parents beforehand). Which is not to say I exclude the idea of other alma matars attending as well, though unless they are parents, which, from a purely hypotetical, in-universe perspective, this witch might be, I don't quite see why witches and wizards would travel between countries for a school match when you have the British and Irish Quidditch League and the European Cup going on at the same time. Alternatively, it could have been Madam Lucinda Thomsonicle-Pocus, the Chief Attendant of Witchcraft Provisions for Hogwarts. Then again there is no way of knowing either, since nothing is set in stone by canon, but still, nice catch! :-D Maester Martin (talk) 07:08, October 16, 2018 (UTC) 1992 Quidditch spectators Hi there! I went consolidating and grouping those unidentified individuals so that descriptions such as "1991 Start-of-Term Feast attendant", "1992 Quidditch spectator", and "1993 Start-of-Term Feast attendant" won't have to repeatedly appear for all the applicable subsections. As I was going through, for "1992 Quidditch spectators", it kind of have something to do with what user:QuirinusSprout mentioned above; Please note that I'm only asking specifically about the 1992 Quidditch spectators; I feel that, given Lucius Malfoy also attended, that should be proof enough that there are other possibilities... Or do Hogwarts Board of Governors count as Hogwarts employees? There are 17 individuals under this section, I feel that, if it can be determined that they aren't necessarily Hogwarts employees, the entire section could benefit from being separated as another article "Unidentified spectators at the 1992 Gryffindor vs Slytherin Quidditch match". Yes, it is quite lengthy, but it is the utmost precise description I can think of for a title to be to the point. The perks of having its own page would be, the repetitive "... watched the Slytherin versus Gryffindor Quidditch match during the 1992–1993 school year" for all 17 of them can just be stated ONCE at the top of this page, leaving only the actual respective descriptive parts behind. It's just a thought. That being said, I hope I don't sound racist by raising this, I do find some of them looking somewhat alike? *100px **and 100px *100px **and 100px In fact, for the older dude, it's even stated to be the same person described in "White-bearded attendant"; so for him at least, I think I'll wait for a week to combine sections, no need for appearing twice. Not sure about the younger dude though. This list currently has over 50 individuals, so I can understand a separate list hosting less than 20 can obviously be thrown the question, "but why is it needed?" IDK, I just think that it is concentrated, but mostly because I really don't know why those spectators are undoubtably Hogwarts employees. That's the main basis I'm running the proposal on, so let me know if I'm wrong and I'll drop it in a heartbeat. Hope to hear from someone soon. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 05:49, October 16, 2018 (UTC) :Well, it's been a while, wondering if anyone would share their opinions on the matter if they randomly saw this. Also, following the title of 1996 Gryffindor Quidditch Keeper trials spectators as an example, alternatively, if separating out the 1992 Quidditch spectators as its own article, as opposed to the really lengthy option I proposed above, there's "1992 Gryffindor-Slytherin Quidditch match spectators". It's still quite long, but it's at least shorter than the first suggestion. :Also, this is me just being polite; I set a date to proceed it in early Feb.; I'm just going to take the silence as no objection or no care. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 06:38, January 25, 2019 (UTC) ::I think the article is a good idea, it would decrease the amount of articles on unidentified characters, for one. I notice there are quite a few of those, so getting rid of a few would definitely be a bonus. ::[[User:ThanatodoraSage|'민태준' - '슈가']] (Inconvenience me here!) 20:45, January 26, 2019 (UTC) :::I'm sorry to say, I don't really understand Sage's comment above because the proposal wasn't about "getting rid of" anything, it was about understanding the situation better and wondering if separating the batch out would be more ideal, which was unanswered (in a way I could understand, at least) :::That being said, as no one was jumping in to provide any proof that those spectators are in fact all Hogwarts employees, I've extracted the bunch at 1992 Gryffindor-Slytherin Quidditch match spectators. I have not ''yet'' removed the respective content in Unidentified Hogwarts employees#1992 Quidditch spectators, in case there're some people who decided to finally grace this discussion after the action had been done. I don't care for making efforts then to be reverted, so the separated article is that one edit for now. If anyone wants to object, kindly do it within a month. After that, I'll remove the info on this one, and proceed to change all the involved redirects. :::Note that, there's 17 subsections in this article and only 14 at the separated article, because 3 of them have other appearances that signify them to in fact be Hogwarts employees, so that are kept here. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:41, February 6, 2019 (UTC) ::::Whelp, I was not available during the timespan mentioned above; it's now been an extra half a year more for people to voice their opinion, and none did so, so the I've removed the spectators just now, only keeping the ones with other appearances besides the match. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 09:04, November 5, 2019 (UTC) Unidentified Hogwarts Healers Hi there; sans the above, I'm also wondering if it can be considered to separate 5 individuals from this hub article, they have one thing in common: they are all Healers. After reading HPW:NG#Characters, due to situation being "multiple individuals known in one same position", I know it technically isn't the same as the second example listed on the policy page, but I think for those 5 individuals, what they do at Hogwarts is certainly less ambiguous than the 50+ other characters they share the same article with. Those 5 are: *Unidentified Hogwarts employees#High-ranking Hogwarts Healer *Unidentified Hogwarts employees#Black Healer *Unidentified Hogwarts employees#Healer who tended to Hermione Granger *Unidentified Hogwarts employees#Healer who watched the First Task *Unidentified Hogwarts employees#Unidentified Hogwarts healer during the Battle of Hogwarts I know it's not a lot of people, but like I said, their occupation is more specific than the rest being listed, so am wondering if relocating them to a new page "Unidentified Hogwarts Healers" would not be a terrible idea. The hypothetical new page could also be categorized with Category:Healers; while idk if anyone would actually go look for unidentified Hogwarts Healers, I think being included in the category should on some level make finding them easier. But that's just me. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:34, November 5, 2018 (UTC) :I personally think that's a good idea. I don't think anyone would search for an identified Hogwarts healer that watched the first task lol. I may be wrong, but that's me. Feel free to do as you feel. :[[User:Harrypotterexpert101|'Harrypotterexpert101']] https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/ursuul/images/0/0a/Council-icon-FANDOM.svg (talk) 20:35, January 26, 2019 (UTC) ::Oh hey! Was not expecting this one to be replied! ::"I don't think anyone would search for an identified Hogwarts healer that watched the first task lol." Ditto! xD The fact that it's buried with 77 other unidentified individuals (there's currently 78 on the page) probably doesn't help the matter. I know relocating mere 5 out of the batch will seem to make little differences, but I think this one is the most un-redundant option I can think of (sans the issue above with the 1992 Quidditch spectators); because other options are "Employees at the Hogwarts greenhouses" and "Duelling Club supervisors", both having even less individuals than this batch. ::Thanks for the input! I'll wait for like another month or two to proceed, I guess. =D ::--Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:05, January 26, 2019 (UTC) Wizardkind Some have suggested the idea that any of the individuals may somehow be Squibs, and as this article does not belong in the Wizards category. Personally I disagree with this evaluation; whilst Filch is a Squib employed at Hogwarts, he is not an academic member of staff, simply the Caretaker. Furthermore, all these individuals are shown wearing wizarding attire; Squibs do not dress like this; they are broadly not members of the Wizarding World and live in the Muggle world due to their lack of magic. Even in this article. everyone is labelled a wizard or witch in their short descriptions. People who are indeed Squibs find out very young about their inability to perform magic. Therefore, none of them would therefore hold respectable positions at Hogwarts or wear wizarding clothes, because they just would not. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:40, March 7, 2019 (UTC) :We know almost nothing about all the individuals shown on this page. While trying to avoid having separate articles for each of these makes some sense, joined altogether in a single article about all you can say is they are "unidentified individuals at Hogwarts". Could be staff or guests - we have seen individuals from the MoM visiting during feasts and know that even Muggle parents have visited - and we have no idea as to their wizarding abilities (especially as most (or none?) of them are seen doing any magic. In short, this article should likely be cleaned up to remove all the speculation that has been gathered here. --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:50, March 7, 2019 (UTC) In that case I would produce separate articles for each of these individuals, with their own infoboxes. Whilst I agree that the demonstration of magical skills is the clearest indicator of someone being Wizardkind, many witches and wizards shown in places like Diagon Alley and the Ministry for example are never shown using magic themselves, as they are simply incredibly minor background characters who only serve as background fillers. RedWizard98 (talk) 02:58, March 7, 2019 (UTC)